Authors:

Yohanes Febriyanto Gibert, I Ketut Suardita

Abstract:

“ABSTRAK Tujuan Penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui pertanggungjawaban penggunaan diskresi bagi Kepala Daerah dalam penyelenggaraan pemerintahan terkait situasi pandemi covid-19, serta untuk mengetahui batasan-batasan wewenang yang dipunyai Kepala Daerah dalam menggunakan diskresi yang dapat berdampak hukum. Jenis metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penulisan ini adalah metode penelitian yuridis normatif. Pada penelitian ini jenis pendekatan yang digunakan adalah pendekatan perundang-undangan, serta pendekatan konseptual. Hasil Penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa, pertama: Batasan diskresi bagi Kepala Daerah adalah perbuatan hukum yang dimana harus memenuhi unsur unsur antara lain belum diaturnya ketentuan pada undang-undang yang mengatur tentang tindakan tersebut, atau ketentuan yang mengatur tindakan tersebut masih tidak jelas yang mengakibatkan perlunya kebebasan mengambil tindakan dari Kepala Daerah, tindakan tersebut hanya bisa dilakukan untuk memberikan kepastian hukum,dalam keadaan kekosongan hukum, dan mengatasi stagnasi pemerintahan dalam keadaan keadaan penting dan mendesak untuk kepentingan umum dengan batasannya. Kepala Daerah harus tetap bertindak sesuai koridor hukum yang ditetapkan, dalam hal ini adalah hukum tidak tertulis yaitu AAUPB, apabila terbukti melakukan penyalahgunaan wewenang dan melanggar AAUPB dapat ditutut baik secara hukum administrasi maupun pidana. Kedua, Tanggungjawab secara administrasi kepada Kepala Daerah diatur dalam UU No. 30 Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan, sedangkan tanggungjawab secara pidana diatur pada UU No. 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Kata Kunci: Pertangungjawaban, Diskresi, Kepala Daerah, COVID-19 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to determine the accountability of the use of discretion for Regional Heads in government administration related to the Covid-19 pandemic situation, as well as to determine the limits of authority that the Regional Head has in using discretion that can have legal implications. This type of research method used in this paper is a juridical normative research method. In this study, the type of approach used is a statutory approach (Statute Approach), as well as a conceptual approach. The results of this study indicate that, firstly: Discretionary limits for Regional Heads are legal acts which must meet the elements, among others, the provisions of the law governing such actions are not regulated, or the provisions governing such actions are still unclear which results in the need for freedom. taking action from the Regional Head, such action can only be done to provide legal certainty, in a state of legal vacuum, and to overcome government stagnation in conditions of urgency and urgency for the public interest with limits. The Regional Head must continue to act in accordance with the stipulated legal corridor, in this case it is unwritten law, namely AAUPB, if it is proven that it has misused authority and violated the AAUPB, it can be prosecuted both in administrative and criminal law. Second, the administrative responsibility to the regional head is regulated in Law no. 30 of 2014 concerning State Administration, while criminal responsibility is regulated in Law no. 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Corruption Crime. Keywords: Accountability, Discretion, District Heads, COVID-19”

Keywords

Pertangungjawaban, Diskresi, Kepala Daerah, COVID-19 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to determine the accountability of the use of discretion for Regional Heads in government administration related to the Covid-19 pandemic situation, as well as to determine the limits of authority that the Regional Head has in using discretion that can have legal implications. This type of research method used in this paper is a juridical normative research method. In this study, the type of approach used is a statutory approach (Statute Approach), as well as a conceptual approach. The results of this study indicate that, firstly: Discretionary limits for Regional Heads are legal acts which must meet the elements, among others, the provisions of the law governing such actions are not regulated, or the provisions governing such actions are still unclear which results in the need for freedom. taking action from the Regional Head, such action can only be done to provide legal certainty, in a state of legal vacuum, and to overcome government stagnation in conditions of urgency and urgency for the public interest with limits. The Regional Head must continue to act in accordance with the stipulated legal corridor, in this case it is unwritten law, namely AAUPB, if it is proven that it has misused authority and violated the AAUPB, it can be prosecuted both in administrative and criminal law. Second, the administrative responsibility to the regional head is regulated in Law no. 30 of 2014 concerning State Administration, while criminal responsibility is regulated in Law no. 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Corruption Crime. Keywords: Accountability, Discretion, District Heads, COVID-19

Downloads:

Download data is not yet available.

References

References Not Available

PDF:

https://jurnal.harianregional.com/kerthanegara/full-70680

Published

2021-03-24

How To Cite

FEBRIYANTO GIBERT, Yohanes; SUARDITA, I Ketut. Pertanggungjawaban Kepala Daerah Dalam Penggunaan Diskresi Terkait Penanggulangan Pandemi Covid-19.Kertha Negara : Journal Ilmu Hukum, [S.l.], v. 9, n. 3, p. 175-188, mar. 2021. Available at: https://jurnal.harianregional.com/kerthanegara/id-70680. Date accessed: 08 Jul. 2024.

Citation Format

ABNT, APA, BibTeX, CBE, EndNote - EndNote format (Macintosh & Windows), MLA, ProCite - RIS format (Macintosh & Windows), RefWorks, Reference Manager - RIS format (Windows only), Turabian

Issue

Vol 9 No 3 (2021)

Section

Articles

Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License